Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the prompt is discarded, but it says nothing about the return value's structure, template contents, failure modes, or the fact that all parameters are also effectively discarded after their checks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The key behavior and the 'discarded' caveat are front-loaded. Its terseness creates ambiguity, but that is primarily a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations cannot be adequately understood from a two-sentence description. Missing information includes what the three-step template actually is, why the parameters are accepted if they are discarded, and whether the tool is effectively a no-op. The agent is left to guess the tool's role relative to the sibling shape-check and validation tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter description already documents its purpose and discard behavior. The tool-level description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete action: 'Return a three-step thinking template' and notes that the prompt is discarded. However, it does not explain what the template contains or why nine unrelated input parameters are accepted, and it only weakly distinguishes this tool from sibling shape-check and validation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The only hint is 'Prompt discarded,' which implies a no-op-like behavior, but no scenario, alternative, or exclusion is mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.